Houses are taboo in the colleague district, because to speak about it, employers often prohibit. They want to stop high salary requirements by avoided that one woman deserves his colleague. This damages the employer, says the sociology professor Stefan Liebig, "Because transparency in the remuneration and fairness at salary negotiations drove to high motivation". Liebig believes that, in computer scientists and engineers, a fair salary has a very central role on the commitment.
Stefan Liebig is Professor for Sociology at the Free University of Berlin and Scientific Executive Board of the German Institute for Economic Research DIW. In his research, he covers the perception and evaluation of social inequalities.
Mr. Liebig, the salary is usually not talking in the colleague circle. Why not?
Because some employers prohibit this.
Although there have been the law on pay transparency for several years, which aware of the employees are entitled to learn what the colleague deserves?
I suspect that there is still internal regulations in some companies that can not be spoken on the salary. We know about studies before importing of the law 2017 that about one third is the high of the income of colleagues is known and two-thirds are not. This ratio will probably not be postponed the Wage Transparency Act.
Tourism for justice
If we know what the colleague earns, then we compare yours with our income?
We compare us with persons from the company and external, which are the same. Criteria for about age, training and gender. With this knowledge, we judge whether the own salary is appropriate or not. Behind this comparison, our requirement is for justice. We humans have a central and strong sense of justice. The central question in the assessment of whether a salary is just: will be my use for the company adaquat rewarded? If you do a lot should get a lot, who does little, little. This standard leads us to the evaluation and it is especially applied in the working world.
What is the consequence of it, if you feel your own salary as unfair?
First, we try to balance the ratio between its own performance and salary. Either by calling a neat surcharge in the next salary negotiation or reduces its performance at a low content – ie the performance adapts to the salary. If that does not work, look after a new job in a different operation with a higher salary. If that does not work, you know inside.
Infringement sensitivity affects the work performance.
Yes and typically in creative jobs as those of engineers and computer scientists. They should be innovative, engage and do not service according to regulation. The expectation to you is that you develop new. This does not work with regulations, the motivation must come from you yourself. That is why I suspect that justice of income in these two occupational groups has a very central role on the commitment. Also, therefore, because for computer scientists and engineers there is a special labor market situation. They are desirable and therefore the prere for their employers, just to be dotted, significantly higher than in other professions. Fair salary help you to keep and spur you to innovate and committed in the company to be tatig.
Wild income speculation
If companies forbid their employees to talk to each other about the salary, they probably damage themselves?
Yes, but not without reason. You want to prevent the staff from making high salary claims because of their knowledge about the salary of better-earning colleagues. The detection of your employees through intransparent salary Stort some employers obviously less than higher personnel expenditure. By taboo as a topic under colleagues are taboo, the companies open wild income speculation tur and gate.
To avoid this, the companies should probably disclose the salary of their employees internally?
Much more important is that the rules of pay and the negotiations on their own salary are perceived as fair. Decisive is clear to salary differences and make the salary negotiations fairly. In tariff systems, there are certain criteria, who is paid after which fee stage. At the moment, when companies no longer access such systems in the remuneration, they have to create the legitimate of income and income differences themselves. A collective system relieves the companies in the burial for different houses. That’s easy, but little helpful.
The feeling arises to be treated unfairly, from non-transparent bars?
This is certainly a cause. Many studies have shown that when salary negotiations were conducted according to clear rules and the reason for a certain salary highly communicated, that salary have been considered to be fairly perpendicular under other conditions. Procedural justice is therefore more important than distribution justice for people.
How does that turn out?
If the employees are unfairly treated in salary negotiation or from their supervisors, this has a much gross negative effect as they were earned 200 euros less compared to the colleague. In many studies, workers were more willing to accept lower income if they had the impression that the procedure that did in the determination of income was fair. Transparency and clear rules for salary negotiations are a condition for justice in the company and crucial for the motivation of employees.